Effects of Varenicline, Depressive Symptoms, and Region of Enrollment on Smoking Cessation in Depressed Smokers

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

Background

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. 

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e‐cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow‐up period of six months from baseline.

Data collection and analysis

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow‐up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

Main results

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk.

We found moderate‐certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I2 = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low‐certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I2 = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate‐certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I2 = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low‐certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm.

Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline found no clear evidence of difference in quit rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; I2 = 65%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I2 = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision.

We found high‐certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I2 = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I2 = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs.

We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual‐form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low‐certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I2 not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

Authors' conclusions

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual‐form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be no difference or a benefit from either medication for quitting smoking.

Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard‐dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e‐cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Can medications like varenicline and cytisine (nicotine receptor partial agonists) help people to stop smoking and do they cause unwanted effects?

Key messages

· Varenicline can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. Evidence shows it works better than bupropion and using only one type of nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. only patches). Quit rates might be similar to using more than one type of nicotine replacement therapy at the same time (e.g. patches and gum together).

· Cytisine can help people to stop smoking for at least 6 months. It may work as well as varenicline, but future evidence may show that while it helps, it is not quite as helpful as varenicline.

· Future studies should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other stop‐smoking medications, and should also  investigate giving cytisine or varenicline at different doses and for different lengths of time.

What are 'nicotine receptor partial agonists'?

Smoking tobacco is extremely bad for people’s health. For people who smoke, quitting is the best thing they can do to improve their health. Many people find it difficult to quit smoking. Nicotine receptor partial agonists (NRPAs) are a type of medication used to help people to stop smoking. They help to reduce the withdrawal symptoms people experience when they stop smoking, like cravings and unpleasant mood changes. They also reduce the pleasure people usually experience when they smoke. The most widely‐available treatment in this drug type is varenicline. Cytisine is another, similar medication. They may cause unwanted effects such as feeling sick (nausea) and other stomach problems, difficulties sleeping, abnormal dreams, and headache. They may also lead to potentially serious unwanted effects, such as suicidal thoughts, heart problems and raised blood pressure.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if using NRPAs can help people to quit smoking, and if they cause unwanted effects. We wanted to know:

· how many people stopped smoking for at least 6 months; and

· how many people had unwanted effects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated NRPAs used to help people quit smoking. People in the studies had to be chosen at random to receive an NRPA, or another NRPA, placebo (medication like the NRPA but with no active ingredients) or no treatment. They had to be adult tobacco smokers who wanted to stop smoking.

What did we find?

We found 75 studies that compared NRPAs with:

· placebo or no medicine;

· nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches or gum;

· bupropion (another medicine to help people stop smoking);

· another NRPA;

· e‐cigarettes.

The USA hosted the most studies (28 studies). Other studies took place in a range of countries across the world, some in several countries.

Main results

People are more likely to stop smoking for at least six months using varenicline than using placebo (41 studies, 17,395 people), bupropion (9 studies, 7560 people), or just one type of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches alone (11 studies, 7572 people). They may be just as likely to quit as people using two or more kinds of nicotine replacement therapy, like patches and gum together (5 studies, 2344 people).

Cytisine probably helps more people to stop smoking than placebo (4 studies, 4623 people) and may be just as effective as varenicline (2 studies, 2131 people).

For every 100 people using varenicline to stop smoking, 21 to 25 might successfully stop, compared with only 18 of 100 people using bupropion, 18 of 100 people using a single form of nicotine‐replacement therapy, and 20 of 100 using two or more kinds of nicotine‐replacement therapy. For every 100 people using cytisine to stop smoking, 18 to 23 might successfully stop.

The most common unwanted effect of varenicline is nausea, but this is mostly at mild or moderate levels and usually clears over time. People taking varenicline likely have an increased chance of a more serious unwanted effect that could result in going to hospital, however these are still rare (2.7% to 4% of people on varenicline, compared with 2.7% of people without) and may include many that are unrelated to varenicline. People taking cytisine may also have a slightly increased chance of serious unwanted effects compared with people not taking it, but this may be less likely compared with varenicline.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

The evidence for some of our results is very reliable. We’re very confident that varenicline helps people to quit smoking better than many alternatives. We’re less sure of some other results because fewer or smaller studies provided evidence.

Several results suggest one treatment is better or less harmful than another, but the opposite could still be true.

How up to date is the evidence?

The evidence is up to date to 29 April 2022.

Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Nicotine receptor partial agonists may help people to stop smoking by a combination of maintaining moderate levels of dopamine to counteract withdrawal symptoms (acting as an agonist) and reducing smoking satisfaction (acting as an antagonist). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of nicotine receptor partial agonists, including varenicline and cytisine, for smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register in April 2022 for trials, using relevant terms in the title or abstract, or as keywords. The register is compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the treatment drug with placebo, another smoking cessation drug, e-cigarettes, or no medication. We excluded trials that did not report a minimum follow-up period of six months from baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcome was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up using the most rigorous definition of abstinence, preferring biochemically validated rates where reported. We pooled risk ratios (RRs), using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. We also reported the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials of 45,049 people; 45 were new for this update. We rated 22 at low risk of bias, 18 at high risk, and 35 at unclear risk. We found moderate-certainty evidence (limited by heterogeneity) that cytisine helps more people to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.47; I² = 83%; 4 studies, 4623 participants), and no evidence of a difference in the number reporting SAEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 3781 participants; low-certainty evidence). SAE evidence was limited by imprecision. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.51; I² = 60%, 41 studies, 17,395 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence that people taking varenicline are more likely to report SAEs than those not taking it (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; I² = 0%; 26 studies, 14,356 participants). While point estimates suggested increased risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 18 studies, 7151 participants; low-certainty evidence), and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.29; I² = 0%; 22 studies, 7846 participants; low-certainty evidence), in both cases evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals were compatible with both benefit and harm. Pooled results from studies that randomised people to receive cytisine or varenicline showed that more people in the varenicline arm quit smoking (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 2131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and reported SAEs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; I² = 45%; 2 studies, 2017 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence was limited by imprecision, and confidence intervals incorporated the potential for benefit from either cytisine or varenicline. We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than bupropion (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 7560 participants), and no clear evidence of difference in rates of SAEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 5317 participants), neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I² = 10%; 2 studies, 866 participants), or cardiac SAEs (RR 3.17, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.18; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 866 participants). Evidence of harms was of low certainty, limited by imprecision. We found high-certainty evidence that varenicline helps more people to quit than a single form of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.37; I² = 28%; 11 studies, 7572 participants), and low-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, of fewer reported SAEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; I² = 24%; 6 studies, 6535 participants). We found no data on neuropsychiatric or cardiac SAEs. We found no clear evidence of a difference in quit rates between varenicline and dual-form NRT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2344 participants; low-certainty evidence, downgraded because of imprecision). While pooled point estimates suggested increased risk of SAEs (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.46; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1852 participants) and neuropsychiatric SAEs (RR 4.69, 95% CI 0.23 to 96.50; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 764 participants), and reduced risk of cardiac SAEs (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; I² not estimable as events only in 1 study; 2 studies, 819 participants), in all three cases evidence was of low certainty and confidence intervals were very wide, encompassing both substantial harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cytisine and varenicline both help more people to quit smoking than placebo or no medication. Varenicline is more effective at helping people to quit smoking than bupropion, or a single form of NRT, and may be as or more effective than dual-form NRT. People taking varenicline are probably more likely to experience SAEs than those not taking it, and while there may be increased risk of cardiac SAEs and decreased risk of neuropsychiatric SAEs, evidence was compatible with both benefit and harm. Cytisine may lead to fewer people reporting SAEs than varenicline. Based on studies that directly compared cytisine and varenicline, there may be a benefit from varenicline for quitting smoking, however further evidence could strengthen this finding or demonstrate a benefit from cytisine. Future trials should test the effectiveness and safety of cytisine compared with varenicline and other pharmacotherapies, and should also test variations in dose and duration. There is limited benefit to be gained from more trials testing the effect of standard-dose varenicline compared with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials on varenicline should test variations in dose and duration, and compare varenicline with e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Pathophysiology of nAChRs: limbic circuits and related disorders

Human epidemiological studies have identified links between nicotine intake and stress disorders, including anxiety, depression and PTSD. Here we review the clinical evidence for activation and desensitization of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) relevant to affective disorders. We go on to describe clinical and preclinical pharmacological studies suggesting that nAChR function may be involved in the etiology of anxiety and depressive disorders, may be relevant targets for medication development, and may contribute to the antidepressant efficacy of non-nicotinic therapeutics. We then review what is known about nAChR function in a subset of limbic system areas (amygdala, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex), and how this contributes to stress-relevant behaviors in preclinical models that may be relevant to human affective disorders. Taken together, the preclinical and clinical literature point to a clear role for ACh signaling through nAChRs in regulation of behavioral responses to stress. Disruption of nAChR homeostasis is likely to contribute to the psychopathology observed in anxiety and depressive disorders. Targeting specific nAChRs may therefore be a strategy for medication development to treat these disorders or to augment the efficacy of current therapeutics.

TOBACCO USE DISORDER AND DUAL DISORDERS Joint statement by the Spanish Psychiatry Society and the Spanish Dual Disorders Society

Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is a health problem of the first order in the world population, affecting a vulnerable population, such as people with other mental disorders, whose morbidity and mortality are increased as a result.

Depression symptom profiles and long-term response to cognitive behavioral therapy plus contingency management for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Depression is heterogeneous in nature and using diagnostic categories limits insight into understanding psychopathology and its impact on treatment efficacy. This secondary analysis sought to: 1) identify distinct subpopulations of cigarette users with depression, and 2) examine their response to cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) + contingency management (CM) for smoking cessation at one year.

METHOD

The sample comprised 238 (74 % females) adults who smoke receiving CBT only or CBT + CM. A latent class analysis was conducted on baseline depressive symptoms measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Generalized estimating equations assessed the main and interactive effects of class, time, treatment, and sex on smoking abstinence.

RESULTS

Three distinct classes were identified: C1 (n= 76/238), characterized by mild depression, loss of energy, pessimism, and criticism, C2 (n= 100/238) presenting moderate severity and decreased appetite, and C3 (n= 62/238) showing severe depression, increased appetite, and feelings of punishment. There was a significant cluster × treatment interaction, which indicated additive effects of CM over CBT alone for Class 1 and 2. Persons in Class 1 and 2 were 3.60 [95 % CI: 1.62, 7.97] and 2.65 [95 % CI: 1.19, 5.91] times more likely to be abstinent if CBT + CM was delivered rather than CBT only. No differential sex effects were observed on treatment response according to cluster.

CONCLUSIONS

Profiling depression symptom subtypes of cigarette users may be more informative to improve CM treatment response than merely focusing on total scores.

Psychiatric Comorbidity and Multimorbidity in the EAGLES Trial: Descriptive Correlates and Associations With Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events, Treatment Adherence, and Smoking Cessation

INTRODUCTION

Psychiatric and substance use disorders represent barriers to smoking cessation. We sought to identify correlates of psychiatric comorbidity (CM; 2 diagnoses) and multimorbidity (MM; 3+ diagnoses) among smokers attempting to quit and to evaluate whether these conditions predicted neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs), treatment adherence, or cessation efficacy (CE).

AIMS AND METHODS

Data were collected from November 2011 to January 2015 across sixteen countries and reflect the psychiatric cohort of the EAGLES trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, or placebo for 12 weeks and were followed for an additional 12 weeks posttreatment. NPSAE outcomes reflected 16 moderate-to-severe neuropsychiatric symptom categories, and CE outcomes included continuous abstinence at weeks 9-12 and 9-24.

RESULTS

Of the 4103 participants included, 36.2% were diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions (20.9% CM, 15.3% MM). Psychiatric CM and MM were associated with several baseline factors, including male gender, nonwhite race or ethnicity, more previous quit attempts, and more severe mental health symptoms. The incidence of moderate-to-severe NPSAEs was significantly higher (p < .01) in participants with MM (11.9%) than those with CM (5.1%) or primary diagnosis only (4.6%). There were no significant (ps > .05) main effects or interactions with treatment condition for diagnostic grouping on treatment adherence or CE outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While having multiple psychiatric diagnoses increased risk of developing moderate-to-severe NPSAEs during a quit attempt, neither CM nor MM were associated with treatment adherence or odds of quitting. These findings reassure providers to advise smokers with multiple stable psychiatric conditions to consider using Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications when trying to quit.

IMPLICATIONS

Psychiatric MM may be associated with development of NPSAEs when smokers make a medication-assisted quit attempt, but it does not appear to be differentially associated with medication compliance or efficacy. Prescribing healthcare professionals are encouraged to not only promote use of FDA-approved pharmacotherapies by smokers with complex psychiatric presentations, but also to closely monitor such smokers for neuropsychiatric side effects that may be related to their mental health conditions.

NCT #

NCT01456936.

Remission from nicotine dependence among people with severe mental illness who received help/services for tobacco/nicotine use

OBJECTIVES

A growing body of evidence supports pharmacological interventions to assist smoking cessation in people with severe mental illness (SMI); that is, lifetime major depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, or schizophrenia. Little is known about whether behavioral services are also associated with high probability of remission from nicotine dependence as compared to other types of help/services received (pharmacological, behavioral, or both).

METHODS

A sample of 726 American lifetime adult smokers with SMI and a history of nicotine dependence, who received help/services for tobacco/nicotine use, were identified. These data came from a limited public use dataset, the 2012-2013 NESARC-III. Survival analysis was used to compare the probability of remission from nicotine dependence and the time needed for full remission from nicotine dependence by type of help/services received for tobacco/nicotine use.

RESULTS

Remission was more frequent among those who received behavioral services. In addition, the average time from onset of nicotine dependence until full remission from nicotine dependence was shorter among those who received behavioral services.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests a clinical need for behavioral interventions to promote the probability of remission from nicotine dependence among smokers with SMI. Health care providers could play a role in educating and encouraging smokers with SMI to seek and utilize behavioral services.

Additive effectiveness of contingency management on cognitive behavioural treatment for smokers with depression: Six-month abstinence and depression outcomes

BACKGROUND

Depression and smoking co-occur at high rates and there is a lack of evidence on the efficacy of treatments specifically tailored to this population. This randomized controlled trial sought to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) combined with behavioural activation (BA) and the same treatment protocol plus contingency management (CM).

METHODS

A sample of 120 adult smokers (70.8%: females) with severe depressive symptoms were randomly allocated to: CBT + BA (n = 60) or CBT + BA + CM (n = 60). Smoking and depression outcomes were reported at end of treatment, 1-, 2-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Self-reported smoking status was biochemically verified, and depression was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory-II.

RESULTS

At end of treatment, the overall quit rate was 69.2% (83/120). CM showed an additive effect on CBT + BA in enhancing abstinence rates. The significant effect of group [F(1,155) = 9.55, p =  .0024], time [F(4,96) = 7.93, p < .0001], and group by time interaction [F(4,96) = 6.12, p =  .0002], indicated that CM is more effective for generating longer durations of abstinence beyond those of CBT+BA. All treatment conditions equally promoted sustained reductions in depression across time [F(1,111) = 0.53, p =  .4665]. A greater number of days of continuous abstinence and lower depressive symptoms mutually influenced each other.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressed smokers achieve high cessation rates without suffering negative mood changes. Quitting smoking is not detrimental and adding CM to CBT + BA enhances long-lasting abstinence rates while promoting large depression improvements.

Longitudinal associations between smoking and affect among cancer patients using varenicline to quit smoking

During a quit attempt, high negative affect predicts relapse to smoking. In this study, we evaluated bidirectional longitudinal associations between smoking and negative affect among cancer patients treated with varenicline. Participants (N = 119, 50% female, Mage = 59 years) were smokers (≥5 cigarettes/week) who were diagnosed with cancer and were recruited for a 24-week trial of extended duration varenicline plus behavioral counseling; data for this secondary analyses were drawn from the 12-week open-label phase of the trial. Smoking was assessed via self-reported number of cigarettes in the past 24 h. Negative affect was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). Data were collected at pre-quit (week 0), target quit day (week 1), week 4, and week 12. We evaluated cross-lagged panel models for negative affect and smoking using PROC CALIS in SAS. Models were run separately for participants who were adherent (≥80% of medication taken) or nonadherent to varenicline. Among adherent participants (n = 96), smoking accounted for up to 22% of variance in subsequent negative affect throughout treatment. Cross-lagged associations were not observed between smoking and negative affect among non-adherent participants (n = 23). Negative affect did not predict subsequent smoking among either adherent or nonadherent participants. These results suggest that varenicline may attenuate abstinence-induced negative affect among cancer patients treated for nicotine dependence.